I'm trying to get the sense of the Wikimedia community here on a potentially explosive topic. I started a thread on the Staff Lounge at Wikibooks over what to do with content that openly advocates breaking laws. The goal I had was to help come up with some wording that we could add to existing policies that would prohibit this sort of content from being added to Wikibooks. It has since devolved into general adult-level content including pornography and if it should or should not be permitted and what sorts of policies should be set for handling this sort of content. Generally pornography is not a problem at all on Wikibooks, because it almost always involves a copyright violation or has other policy issues that come into play well before it becomes an issue over pornography. The one exception was ordered to be deleted by Jimbo himself, and comes back to the above issue because it involved a display of what could arguably be child pornography. That doesn't mean it won't be a problem in the future, but at the moment nobody seems to be trying to push the envelope here. Where Wikibooks is having some real problems is with things like the Manual of Crime, How to Rape, AIM Password Cracking, or a currently contentious book on the use of illegal drugs called Drugs: Fact and Fiction. There was one book that even advocated genocide, but that was defeated by a VfD. The point I was trying to bring up is that these books should not have to go before the Wikibooks community if there is a clear policy that is strongly against this sort of practice. As Jimbo pointed out in an earlier discussion, many of these books should simply be removed through a speedy deletion process with perhaps a concurring opinion by another user (i.e. administrator) before it goes. My question to the Wikimedia community at large is to see how you have dealt with content of this nature, or if this is something that is restricted mainly to Wikibooks? I've tried to use NPOV arguments to help temper some of the content, but many times it is simply better to remove the content entirely as the entire book is advocacy of this sort of activity, or to leave it in place with an obvious bias. Sometimes the book is added by an anonymous contributor over a few days and then is a dead project, but in a few cases there are some very active contributors who are very passionate that the content and fight tooth and nail to keep the content in its current form and on Wikibooks, with even a community of contributors that are involved as well. With enough other problems on Wikibooks, administrators have a tendancy to simply leave content like this alone under this situation and perhaps add it to their watch list as something to take care of in the future. One proposal was to simply "wall off" the mature content in such a way that no links would go into or out of the mature content area, and become in effect a project within a project. I don't know how to effectively do this, but in theory it might be possible. Policing that content for vandalism is going to be a nightmare, and I can see other problems as well including administrators openly encouraging vandalism on this sub-set of pages. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea, but it at least is a partial solution to the issue. -- Robert Scott Horning